Post by Zino (@FortyForty)

I watched the Nigerian Senate's deliberations on the screening of Professor Abayomi Fasina for an ambassadorial appointment, and by the time the session ended, I couldn't decide whether I had watched a legislative proceeding or a masterclass in selective outrage.

For those who missed it, Prof. Fasina, the former Vice-Chancellor of the Federal University Oye-Ekiti (FUOYE), is facing allegations from two women who accused him of sexual harassment and victimisation. The matters are still before the courts, and he denies any wrongdoing. That is precisely the point. The courts are yet to determine the facts.

In many democracies, that alone would be enough reason to pause an ambassadorial nomination. Not because an allegation automatically makes someone guilty, but because an ambassador represents more than himself. He represents the moral standing and reputation of an entire country.

But this is Nigeria, where even common sense sometimes requires a two-thirds majority.

To be fair, there were voices of reason in the chamber. Senator Adams Oshiomhole argued that the Senate should simply ask the nominee to clear his name before entrusting him with the responsibility of representing Nigeria abroad. It wasn't a call for conviction. It was a call for caution. A remarkably modest request, if we're being honest.

Unfortunately, moderation rarely survives contact with our Senate.

The majority appeared more interested in defending the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" than in recognising that public office often demands a higher standard than merely avoiding conviction. By that logic, every controversy should be ignored until the final appeal is exhausted. Character, judgment and public confidence apparently no longer qualify as considerations.

One senator even argued that the allegations should never have found their way to the Senate floor in the first place. How thoughtful. After all, why allow inconvenient questions to interrupt a perfectly good confirmation?

Watching the debate was deeply disappointing. Not because the Senate confirmed Prof. Fasina, that is within its constitutional powers, but because of how casually the concerns of the women who made the allegations were brushed aside. They deserved to be heard, even if the allegations remain unproven. Instead, they became little more than an inconvenience to be voted away.

Perhaps what disappointed me most was the silence of the Senate's four female senators.

No one expected them to pronounce guilt. No one asked them to interfere with the judicial process. But in a chamber overwhelmingly dominated by men, one might have hoped for at least a voice urging caution, empathy and the protection of institutional integrity.

Silence, too, is a statement.

Nigeria often wonders why so many women choose not to speak up. Maybe they watched that debate. Maybe they saw what happens when allegations against powerful men are treated as administrative hurdles instead of serious concerns deserving thoughtful consideration.

Justice requires due process. It also requires institutions that understand the difference between presumption of innocence and indifference.

Sadly, the Senate demonstrated the latter far better than the former.

#NigerianSenate #nigeria #whatistrendingwithjoyokpe

0 likes · 0 comments · 0 shares